About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
on the primary. i want to touch on something david said. the year that things shifted, before ronald reagan, he 70% top tax rates for top income earners. you had really powerful unions. had you major government abuses of power. now republicans have continued to move right, as democrats have moved right. you point out romney care. that is the basis for the president's health care reform. in a lot of ways, conservative ideas have won the day. we're no longer talking about 70% tax rates, but republicans in response to draw a really stark contrast have moved out further to the right. to move back to the center there, are policy differences, but it requires subtlety and nuances. but it's harder than yelling about death panels and soci socialism. >> the primary voters have been delivering tea party candidates and overthrowing some incumbent senate candidates, ending up with tea party candidates that absolutely cannot win as we saw in indianapolis. so as much as there are leadership questions involved, how do you get control of the republican primary electorate? >> for a party to be defined as cohesiv
, then president ronald reagan was asked if he had anything to say to the people in the country who did not vote for him and who did not feel that they were part of the reagan revolution. he was also asked about nancy reagan falling down and bumping her head right before the election. he said that she had a tender lump on the side of her head, but that she would be fine. in president clinton's first press conference, after he was re-elected to a second term, the president started to answer a question about the role of first lady hillary clinton in the second clinton term, before he sort of diverted himself into talking about just how damned tired he was. >> well, let me answer the question about hillary. i think what first lady will do is something that i think it will be consistent with what she's been doing, but we have not, frankly, we've been too tired to talk about it. yesterday, i'm embarrassed to tell the american people, i actually slept past noon. i was tired. >> there's no shame in that. >> in the first press conference that george w. bush gave after he was re-elected in 2004, the pres
s, of considers under ronald reagan and george w. bush's tax rates in 2003. it's interesting, i found two universal effects of those tax cuts. first, in every instance we cut the rates, the economy worked faster. it did work, mr. president, we got a lot of growth. but the second may be more interesting, is that guess what happened to the share of taxes paid by the rich. they went up, in fact, if you want to get more money, mr. president, out of rich people, cut their tax rate, don't raise them, because history proves it. >> dave: certainly did in the reagan years and another peace in the wall street journal a couple back, clinton rates, raised top tier 39.6 and as the authors of that piece said produced the one period of shared prosperity not because they raised taxes, but certainly lead to growth, right? >> no question. the 1990's was a prosperous era, but i think that sometimes people get a little of that history wrong what happened in the 1990's, president clinton raised taxes in the first year in office and remember, the first two years in office were a catastrophe and in fa
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)